1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On November 10, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s spouse C’s account, KRW 35 million to the Defendant’s account on December 7, 2010, and KRW 8 million to the Defendant’s account on January 3, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. The plaintiff: The plaintiff lent 48 million won to the defendant as above, and the defendant partially repaid the amount.

Accordingly, the return of the remaining loans is sought.

B. Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff invested the said money in D, which is engaged in the gift certificate discount business (illegal act of receiving gift certificates without delay); and (b) the Defendant only delivered the said money.

3. The loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). Thus, it is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in a case where money is remitted to another person’s deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or entrustment of delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The burden of proof as to the existence of such an agreement cannot be readily concluded, and the Plaintiff asserts that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). In the context where the Defendant asserts that “the money remitted from the Plaintiff is invested by the Plaintiff in D’s business instead of the Defendant borrowed money,” it is readily concluded that the Plaintiff lent the money to the Defendant solely on the basis that there was money transfer, such as the recognized fact,.